A few months before this, Richter remarked: "Many of the followers of the Saint [St. John] and 'Big Bill' [Haywood] are a sadder but wiser lot. Hundreds have already joined the Socialist [meaning the Detroit] I. W. W., and more are on the way."[494]

The Chicago I. W. W. was bracketed with the American Federation of Labor as being equally with it a snare and a delusion to the working class.

A sober explanation of the DeLeonites' position as compared with the American Federation of Labor and the "Bummery" was made by Rudolph Katz to the Commission on Industrial Relation. He said that the Chicago I. W.W.s look upon the ballot as a gift from the capitalist class. The Detroit I. W. W.s consider the ballot "a conquest of civilization, and," continued Katz,

The DeLeonites cite the recent strike of the clothing workers in Baltimore in support of their strictures on the Federation and the Chicago I. W. W. They call it "a desperate attempt" by the "Bummery" I. W. W. and the American Federation of Labor to crush out the Amalgamated Clothing Workers. The strike was directed, they say, by leaders of the United Garment Workers, the American Federation of Labor, and the Chicago I. W. W.[497]

The Detroiters and the Socialist Labor party fight the anarcho-syndicalist faction of the I. W. W., according to the report of the party to the International Socialist Congress at Brussels in 1911, because the direct-actionists "advocate physical force exclusively; at the same time it [the Socialist Labor party] gives all possible support to the workers who, even under the otherwise baneful leadership of anarchy, are trying to throw off the yoke of the capitalist masters and the reactionary trade-union lieutenants of those masters."[499]

The doctrinaires consider the Chicago I. W. W.s anarchists and themselves socialists—but socialists of a simon-pure Marxian stripe as opposed to the opportunist socialism of the Socialist party. In one of their propaganda leaflets they declare that "the only labor organization in the United States today which is wholly dominated by anarchists is the so-called Industrial Workers of the World, with headquarters, in Chicago, Ill."[500] A propaganda leaflet already quoted sums up in very characteristic fashion the theoretical position of the DeLeonites:

Eugene Debs, who was one of the leading spirits in the organization of the I. W. W. in 1905, and who thought that the elimination of the political clause by the Chicago faction in 1908 was a monstrous blunder, endorsed the position of the DeLeonites on political action. "This faction," said Debs, "is corner-stoned in the true principles of unionism in reference to political action."[502] He thought that there was "no essential difference between the Chicago and Detroit factions of the I. W. W." "If I am right in believing that a majority of the rank and file of the Chicago faction favor political action," he said, "then there is no reason why this majority should not consolidate with the Detroit faction, and thus put an end to the division of these forces."[503] Debs was of the opinion that, if the I. W. W. had continued as it began, "a revolutionary industrial union, recognizing the need of political as well as industrial action, instead of being hamstrung by its own leaders and converted ... into an anti-political machine, it would today be the most formidable labor organization in America, if not the world."

The end of the bifurcated era of I. W. W. history came in September, 1915, when the DeLeonites at their national convention (called the "Eighth I. W. W. Convention") changed their name to the Workers' International Industrial Union, and the Weekly People[504] announced: "The Industrial Workers of the World as founded at Chicago in 1905 is no more." The reason given by the Detroiters for the change was virtually that the "Bummery" had disgraced the letters "I. W. W." "The name I. W. W.," declared Fellow Worker Crawford, "has come to be associated with petty larceny and other slum tactics. It is up to us to choose a new name so as to escape the odium attached to the one we now bear."[505] Their attitude was more fully explained in an announcement by the General Secretary-Treasurer in their official journal.

The name Socialist Labor Union, originally proposed in 1908, was again discussed and considered very seriously because their desire was appropriately to label an organization which claimed to stand for "socialist class unionism." Finally, however, the name, Workers' International Industrial Union, was decided upon "as most appropriate for the designation of the economic wing of the Socialist movement."[507]

The W. I. I. U. soon issued a "Manifesto of Socialist Industrial Unionism" which explained the principles of the newly-christened organization. The W. I. I. U., declares the Manifesto,

PART III
THE DIRECT-ACTIONISTS

CHAPTER XI
Free Speech and Sabotage

The existence between 1908 and 1915 of two national labor organizations bearing the name, Industrial Workers of the World (or "I. W. W."), with labels of identical design—bodies closely paralleling each other in scope and structure despite their disparity in doctrine and tactics—makes it very difficult to discuss either group, or I. W. W.-ism in general, without ambiguity. The I. W. W. which has been most advertised in the United States is the Chicago, or "Direct-Actionist," or "Anarcho-Syndicalist," or "Anti-Political," or "Bummery" or "red" I. W. W. This is the I. W. W. which was actively interested in the strikes at Lawrence, Massachusetts, Wheatland, California, and many other places, and in "free speech" fights at Spokane, Fresno, and San Diego. They are the "Wobblies" of the West. In this present work they are considered, entirely without prejudice to the admittedly more "correct" and consistent position of the doctrinaires of the Detroit wing, to be the I. W. W. The doctrinaires are the socialistic, pro-political, "yellow" I. W. W.

It is proposed in these chapters to sketch the main lines of development of the Chicago organization from 1908 to the present time, as well as to indicate the general character of its activities from year to year. The important and bitterly fought struggle at the seventh and eighth conventions in 1912 and 1913 over the question of decentralization is described as faithfully as possible. The relations between the I. W. W. and the Socialist party are set forth, especially in connection with the adoption of the famous sabotage clause by the Socialist party at its Indianapolis convention in 1912. The newer phases of the organizing and propaganda work of the I. W. W., the free-speech fights, and its increased activity among the unskilled and floating laborers are described. No attempt is made here to go into the various strikes and free-speech controversies in more than a very cursory manner. This is not because their importance is underestimated. The writer feels that the field work of the "Wobblies" is really the most significant part of their history, if for no other reason than that the I. W. W. expends perhaps more energy in proportion to its strength and resources in propaganda, organizing and advertising work afield than does almost any other labor organization in the country. The more striking episodes in the career of the I. W. W., like the Lawrence strike and the Wheatland hop riots, have, however, been extensively written up in the magazines and recorded as well in scientific journals and government reports. On the contrary, the vicissitudes of the career of the I. W. W. as an organized body of workers have never even been recited.

The split of 1908 left the direct-actionists in almost as weak a condition as the doctrinaires. The weakness of the latter has been chronic. The former were able to develop great strength because they had modified their theories to the extent necessary to make some appreciable application of them to the actual conditions of economic life. They were confronted by conditions and met them at the cost of doctrinal consistency. They were unconscious pragmatists and the result is that they have made themselves felt to a much greater extent than the doctrinaires. They have been strikingly successful as gadflies—stinging and shocking the bourgeoisie into the initiation of reforms. If the "anarcho-syndicalist" I. W. W. may not properly be called a successful organization, there is at least this much to be said for it: it has been a far less unsuccessful organization than has the doctrinaire faction.

For some time after the split in 1908 the Industrial Workers of the World scarcely more than kept alive. The membership dwindled and locals expired by the score. Between September, 1908, and May 1, 1910, only sixty-six new local unions were chartered.[509] Only in 1911 did their number begin to increase, and even then it was a halting and fitful progress. Levine writes that the I. W. W. had "shrunk to a mere handful of leaders, revolutionary in spirit and ideals, and persevering in action, with a small, scattered and shifting following and an unsatisfactory administrative machinery."[510]

During the year 1909 the organization was actively interested in a number of strikes. The most important of these was the McKees Rocks (Pennsylvania) strike in which 6,000 employees of the Pressed Steel Car Company were out for two months. Other strikes of the year involved the lumbermen at Somers and Kalispell, Montana; Eureka, California, and Prince Rupert, B. C.; the sheet and tin plate workers at New Castle and Shenango, Pennsylvania; and the farm laborers at Waterville, Washington. Secretary Trautmann believed that these "constant irritative strikes" were more than all else responsible for the fact that less than one-third the gross membership was active (dues-paying) membership. These strikes, he said, involved half the membership in the course of one year.[511]

It was in this same year that the I. W. W. made its bow to the American public as the militant jail and soap-box belligerent in the free-speech fight. As early as April, 1906, there was a minor clash between the police and the "Wobblies," but it was not until nearly three years later that the I. W. W. free-speech epidemic assumed national proportions. Since 1909 the I. W. W.s have attracted quite as much attention by their dramatic free-speech controversies with municipal authorities here and there as they have by the time-honored resort to the strike. During the next few years after the schism of 1908 these free-speech struggles became rather frequent. The Pacific slope is the most fruitful soil for these conflicts. Labor is more mobile there, and when the organizers in any particular town are arrested for preaching revolution a more effective call to "foot-loose Wobblies" for an "invasion" is possible. On the Pacific slope the "Wobblies" almost literally broke into the jails by hundreds. They came to speak, but with the nearly certain foreknowledge that they would be collared by the police before they said many words. They simply crowded the jails, and in this way, as they intended, clogged the machinery of municipal administration by making themselves the guests of the city in such numbers as to be no inconsiderable burden to their real hosts, the taxpayers. Vincent St. John, then Secretary-Treasurer of the I. W. W., recently told the United States Commission on Industrial Relations that "wherever any local union becomes involved in a free-speech fight they notify the general office and that information is sent to all the local unions, ... with the request that if they have any members that are foot-loose to send them along." Mr. St. John stated, however, that the general (i. e., the national) organization does not in any way finance or manage these free-speech fights except to contribute, so far as possible, at the call of the locals. The management of the struggle is in the hands, of the local union or unions most interested.[512] The same tactics are pursued in nearly every instance—a policy of sullen non-resistance on the part of the I. W. W. and of wholesale jailing by the authorities. The trouble always seems to begin because local authorities are revolted by—or at least nervously apprehensive about—either the substance of the I. W. W. speeches or the language in which their ideas are conveyed, or both. The remarks are alleged to be seditious, incendiary, unpatriotic, immoral, etc., or, whether they are any or all these or none of them, they are alleged to be profane or vulgar beyond the limits of forbearance. In the judgment of the writer the latter charge can be laid at the door of the I. W. W. with far greater justification than can the former. Refinement is not the Wobblies' long suit. How could it be? Our town fathers ought to be somewhat more tolerant of a want of refinement which is more or less inevitable under the conditions—for which conditions, moreover, they are in part responsible.

As to the first charge, it can only be remarked that suppression of what authorities think is subversive and seditious almost invariable has the same effect as would an effort to smother an active volcano. The ideas get expressed anyhow—and more bitterly, with the added circumstance that those who try to do the smothering are burnt. Of course, it is not easy to determine at just what point language becomes directly provocative to violence. This limit of possible official tolerance is far less often reached than would be indicated by the actual conduct of local officials in these circumstances. "It cannot be considered as provocative of immediate disorder," says Police Commissioner Arthur Woods, of New York, "if speakers criticize, no matter how vehemently, the existing order of things, or if they recommend, no matter how enthusiastically, a change which they believe would improve things."[513] When George Creel was police commissioner in Denver he took a similar position and worked on the theory that all ideas could be safely given a hearing. He is reported to have given the following answer to an I. W. W. committee which applied to him for a "soap-box permit": "Go ahead, boys; speak as much as you like; only there's just one favor I'm going to ask. I wish you wouldn't spout directly under the army headquarters. They're not important, but they're childish, and they'll make me lots of bother if you do."[514] The result: nothing more happened than happens when the mine operators say that the leaders of the United Mine Workers ought to be taken out and shot. There was free speech but no fight.

After the experience of Spokane, Fresno, and San Diego some members of the organization at least recognized that no matter how absolute their right to pitch into established institutions from every angle, the sober necessities of a successful propaganda for revolutionary industrial unionism demanded more concentration upon that subject. In September, 1913, Ewald Koetgen, a member of the General Executive Board, made this suggestion to the delegates at the eighth convention:

In the fall of 1909 there were no less than three important free-speech campaigns conducted by the I. W. W. These were staged at Missoula, Montana; Spokane, Washington; and New Castle, Pennsylvania. In 1910 small "fights" were conducted in the spring and summer in Wenatchee and Walla Walla, Washington, and during the fall a much more important one at Fresno, California. This latter struggle continued until March, 1911. From this time until the end of the year 1913 hardly a mouth elapsed that did not witness a more or less important free-speech controversy between the Wobblies and the municipal authorities in some part of the United States. In the five-year period, 1909-1913, there were at least twenty free-speech campaigns of importance, continuing under definite I. W. W. direction for periods ranging from a few days to more than six months. The most important of these disturbances was that at San Diego, which broke out about February 1, 1912, and continued until late the following summer. Since 1913 free speech has been a less important issue with the I. W. W., and there have been comparatively few such disturbances.

Paterson, New Jersey, Aberdeen, South Dakota, Old Forge, Pennsylvania, and Everett, Washington, are almost the only cases of any great importance. The most serious of these was the Everett free-speech controversy which culminated in the fatal tragedy of November 6, 1916.

The attitude of the residents of the cities where free-speech fights have been staged was naturally bitterly hostile. This was most strikingly noticeable in business and commercial circles and was of course reflected in the daily press. In San Diego during the free-speech fight the local papers, almost without exception, kept up a running fire of editorial abuse of the I. W. W.s. "Hanging is none too good for them," said the Tribune; "they would be much better dead, for they are absolutely useless in the human economy; they are the waste material of creation and should be drained off into the sewer of oblivion there to rot in cold obstruction like any other excrement."[516] In the face of such a tirade it is interesting to read the report of the Special Commissioner sent by Governor Hiram Johnson to investigate the disturbances in San Diego. Commissioner Weinstock took pains to follow up the stories of the brutality and cruelty of the self-constituted citizens' committee of Vigilantes not only to the I. W. W.s but also to any who were outspoken enough to defend them or who were alleged to have aided and abetted them. Mr. Weinstock says that he "is frank to confess that when he became satisfied of the truth of the stories ... it was hard for him to believe that he was not sojourning in Russia, conducting his investigation there instead of in this alleged 'land of the free and home of the brave.'"[517]

The organization made no attempt to hold a convention in 1909, but in May, 1910, the fifth convention met in Chicago. On the first day there were twenty-two delegates present, representing forty-two local unions in the following states: California, Colorado, Montana, Rhode Island, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Indiana, and in British Columbia. Judging from the very fragmentary records available there was little business of any importance transacted at this meeting. The delegates adopted a resolution to "reaffirm the original [Industrial Union] Manifesto of 1905,..."[518] and dispersed.

In September, 1911, fifteen months later, a somewhat more successful convention was held. This sixth annual meeting of the I. W. W. was in point of size almost as insignificant as the preceding one, thirty-one delegates from eleven states being present. In addition to the regular delegates there were present three "fraternal delegates" from the Brotherhood of Timber Workers. Twenty-one locals were represented in addition to the locals included in the Textile Workers National Industrial Union of the I. W. W.—the only "national industrial union at that time included in the organization."[519] The convention was harmonious, and there is, therefore, the less to chronicle. "Most of the delegates were young men full of the fire and enthusiasm of youth. 'Intellectuals' were conspicuous by their absence."[520] We are told that very few changes were made in the organic law of the organization. Proposals were made, however, by the score. In the appendix to the Minutes is a list containing seventy resolutions which were presented on the floor of the convention.[521] The question of politics was scarcely touched upon. An anti-parliamentary resolution was voted down without discussion. The bulk of the delegates were undoubtedly non-parliamentarians, that is to say, indifferent about politics and legislative action. An official report of the convention in the Industrial Worker says that the report of General Organizer Trautmann, which it declared would be published later in Solidarity,

Mr. Trautmann later transfered his allegiance to the Socialist Labor party faction. The Weekly People (the official S. L. P. organ) of July 26, 1913, published (on page 2) a letter from Trautmann to Eugene V. Debs in which he says:

Official reports of the convention claimed that there had been "a gradual increase in the moral, financial and numerical strength of the I. W. W." This claim is not entirely justified by available figures. The number of locals in the organization was but slightly, if any, greater. Fewer charters were issued and more locals disbanded in 1911 than in 1910. The membership figures are conflicting, those furnished by the Secretary-Treasurer making a less favorable showing than those of Professor Barnett.[523] Mr. St. John says that the membership of the organization in good standing in October, 1911, was about 10,000.

There was at this time a very considerable gain in particular industries, such as metal working and railroad and building construction. This development is indicated in Table 1, which shows the average membership of the I. W. W. in the specified industries during the period 1910-1913:

TABLE 1[525]

Average Membership (Chicago) I. W. W.—1910-1913, by Industries

If figures are ever misleading, they are so in reference to the "Wobblies." They are presented, however, in the belief that they have some significance. The organization was now unquestionably picking up. In 1910 there had been a number of I. W. W. strikes—nine at any rate in which the organization was actively interested. In April, the farm hands of North Yamhill, Oregon, who "had been handing out the principles of revolutionary unionism in huge, raw chunks,"[526] walked out on account of the discharge of some of their number. In August, the Gas Works' laborers in southern California, chiefly Mexicans, were out for about two weeks for higher wages. The settlement as reported fixed wages at $2.25 and provided that only I. W. W.s were to be employed in the future. A strike of the window cleaners in Providence for a wage increase and the closed shop was reported won. These instances will give an idea of the character of the strikes and the workers involved. In 1910 there appear to have been very few strikes in which the I. W. W. was interested. Such meager data as are available about I. W. W. strikes have been gathered together in Appendix VIII.

Although 1911 was an inactive year as regards strikes, the condition of the organization was not nearly so hopeless as it had been.